A hearing commenced involving 11 consolidated libel actions initiated by Frederick Fant Abbott, a magician and entertainer known professionally as “Charcot,” against the publishers of several English and Irish newspapers. The lawsuits relate to reports concerning a performance Abbott gave in Waterford in August 1925.

Abbott’s legal team, led by Sir Edward Marshall-Hall KC and Mr. Martin O’Connor, argued that the published descriptions contained defamatory statements that seriously damaged Abbott’s reputation and career. The magician’s signature illusion, known as “the box trick,” involves placing a woman inside a large black box, with her wrists, ankles, and neck bound by cords held by audience members. The box is then reportedly sawn in two, creating the illusion that the woman inside has been cut in half, before she reappears unharmed.

The disputed newspaper reports, notably an article published on August 27, 1925, by the Dublin Evening Herald, described an incident during Abbott’s Waterford performance in which a member of the audience allegedly tied a slip-knot around the neck of the female assistant. The report further claimed that after the box had been cut through, Abbott’s assistant hastily separated the box to reveal the woman curled up in distress at one end, causing a commotion among the audience. According to the article, the assistant was said to be crying and left the stage upset.

Abbott’s counsel vigorously denied these claims, describing them as “absolutely untrue” and accusing the newspapers of fabricating the account. Sir Edward Marshall-Hall emphasized that there was no audience disturbance, no slip-knot tied around the assistant’s neck, and no visible distress or tears from the woman involved in the illusion.

Representing the defendants, Serjeant Sullivan KC, Mr. Eustace Hills KC, and Mr. Wilfrid Lewis maintained that the published statements were not defamatory and were substantially true.

After consideration, the jury found in favor of Abbott on October 29, awarding him £500 in damages. The verdict affirmed the magician’s position that the newspaper coverage had been misleading and damaging to his professional standing.